Apart from any legal or political issues, I believe that protecting Syria is a moral responsibility for the U.S. They don’t need to, but they should. However, I support President Obama’s position to refrain from using any sort of warfare to solve the issue. Using weapons to suppress violence seems a bit ironic, even hypocritical to me.
Nevertheless, I think that the U.S., as well as other nations, have a moral responsibility to protect those in danger. Still the U.S. must consider risks other than the obvious aggressivity by which they must instill order–they need to consider economic drawbacks. For instance, can the U.S. afford to take a stance in Syria?
I actively support human rights and thus think that the people in Syria who are persecuted should have protection. But at the same time, I think that the nations looking to follow “R2P” and defend those people should find a peaceful way to go about the situation. Sure, it may not be as easy as taking military action, but if the final purpose is to instill peace, would force really do that?